http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/10/overlord-obama-is-ready-to-rule/
Rule? Kings, Emperors, Fuhrers and other species of despot rule.
I thought he worked for “We, the people” to run the Executive Branch of the government.
No, no, no, no, my friend. We are subjects. Silly little people. We are the great unwashed masses. We must be ruled, for after all, we can’t even feed, clothe or house ourselves! Please get with the program!
He can’t RULE an armed populace. Every dictator figured THAT out.
Goodbye oil, income and second Amendment!
Hello “Change”
Isn’t that part of his plan? Disarm the people.
He doesn’t have to disarm the population, if they are unwilling to use the weapons to free themselves.
Don’t say anything like that on LF.
It will get you banned.:eek:
Office of the President-Elect
Barack Obama has created a stir by proclaiming that he heads “The Office of President-Elect” - an office that does not officially exist.
At his first news conference on Nov. 7, Obama stood at a podium bearing a sign that read: Office of the President-Elect. Also, his Web site, Change.gov, bears the words ?Office of the President-Elect" at the top of its home page.
Writer Larry Anderson referred to the “made-up little title” on the American Thinker Web site, and declared: “I nearly busted a gut…”
“Once again, [Obama] can;t wait to invest himself with the trappings of office.”
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wondered: “What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office.”
Technically speaking, Obama may not even be the President-elect, according to the American Sentinel Web site.
“Megalomaniac Obama’s ego grows even more insufferable,” a weekend posting reads.
“Yes, he will be [president-elect]. But he’s not officially yet, until the Electoral College votes.”
“The Constitution provides that on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals. It’s then that they formally elect the President of the United States, based on the general election results.”
BOW DOWN BEFORE MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE… :mad:
The QP’s at professionalsoldiers.com are much more accomodating and sympathetic, Paul. They seem to have a different view of this than the bulk of those at LF.net.
Let me say this about LF. There are some legit guys there, no doubt. There are also a bunch of Mall Ninja Ass Clowns there who don’t know shit. At some point in time a person has to draw a line and say no more. The 2nd Amendment is the glue that holds the fabric together and ensures that the others don’t get swept away.
I am not by any means advocating any action. But, at what point to do we say no more? If we allow ourselves to be disarmed (not saying it will happen) then the rest of the Amendments and the Constitution will be worth nothing because we will have no way of keeping the system of checks and balances in check.
And that, my friend, is the 10 trillion dollar question.
Submariner and rmecapn: I know we had our divergent viewpoints in the pre-election discussions, but in the aftermath I think I find myself much on the same page as you fellows… These are, indeed, troubling times.
In practice, there can be a fine line between being “governed” and being “ruled”. In principle, however, it’s the friggin’ Grand Canyon.
He’s not in yet, couple this with the fact that he has to present his “Real Birth Certificate” to the SCOTUS on December 1st. Not the short version, not a copy of the long version, but the Original.
This is too true. Just look at all these Molon Labe RETARDs that were running around with Assault Weapons Ban compliant guns back during the ban!
What a bunch of masturbators.
For whatever reason, most gun guys love and obsess on rules to follow. Black and White guidelines are a must for these freaks. It’s a strange mental disorder.
Yeah, Obama’s policies are cause for significant concern, and could indeed have profoundly (bad) consequences, if implemented ideologically.
For a charismatic to seize power, he invariably has to demonstrate an ability to stabilize an unstable situation. Obama has to prove he can deliver on his promises, before he can start implementing an ideologic agenda. This gives me two reasons for hope.
First, since history has repeatedly proven the damage of (small-s) socialism to an economy. Since we all know that socialism doesn’t work, I’m skeptical that whatever forays he may attempt into the economy will work, it will be a de-stabilize and aggravate the situation. If he fails to stabilize things, he goes nowhere.
Second, to even attempt to “rule” in such a manner requires constitutional changes that would not only require that he actually succeed per point number one, but would also be a transparent grab for power that will stiffen opposition.
I remain unconvinced that dictatorship can be accomplished in this country by popular acclaim. The entire Constitution was designed to prevent this. If you don’t have faith in the Constitution, than all of this talk is moot.
Constitutional safeguards remain in place and removing them would destroy his ability to rule. Even FDR ran up against opposition to such brazen attempts.
The economy and our nation may collapse into anarchy someday (it’s a historic inevitability, nothing manmade lasts forever), but at least at this point, it’s beyond one man’s or even one party’s power to cause.
Many other extraneous events need to take place, beyond his or anyone’s control.
He hasn’t provided it as of yet, at least not the original. There are instances of him stating that he had duel citizenship in Kenya and the US, and that he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with friends when during that time US citizens were not permitted to enter Pakistan…
He has not shown the origional birth certificate, because the engraver is still working on the plate so he can make the origional.
I’m sure no mater what the BC looks like, it will be deemed proof of citizenship. It is complete BS that he had this long to fabricate a new one.
Jeremy
I wonder how happy he is that his mother in law is moving into the WH with him and the rest of the family. They’ll probably give her Lincoln’s bedroom. He’ll probably put her as Sec of health & human services. I love it, what’s next?
The death of a great nation…
Jeremy
So, given your argument, I may conclude the Constitution was designed to allow the SCOTUS to rule via judicial fiat (which we all readily concede they currently do).
If you don’t have faith in the Constitution, than all of this talk is moot.
It’s not the document, my friend, it’s the people with whom I have no faith. Like Adams stated, this document was made for a moral and religious people, we are neither.
In history, we come across new paradigms. I contend this is one of them.
Actually that’s putting a whole lot of words in my mouth. Moreover SCOTUS cannot rule by decree. It simply vindicates or rejects laws already passed by state or national legislatures. So I don’t think I concede anything of the sort. This however doesn’t mean I think everything is hunky-dorey either.
Constitutionally, it was left to Congress to decide what form, limits and powers the courts would take. Judicial review of laws was indeed established by act of congress.
Has that gone too far in some instances? Yes, but that doesn’t mean the Constitution is irrelevant or doesn’t check Obama’s power. If you were expecting perfect adherence to your understanding of the Constitution, you were bound to be disappointed.
It’s not the document, my friend, it’s the people with whom I have no faith. Like Adams stated, this document was made for a moral and religious people, we are neither.
In history, we come across new paradigms. I contend this is one of them.
I’m not sure I understand what the new paradigm is. Parties rise and fall. Sometimes your guy wins, sometimes he doesn’t, but Constitutionally, Obama has every right to govern. Let’s just hope it works out.
Like you, I don’t have much faith in the people (elites or otherwise), which is why the document is necessary. It inhibits the actions of people.
Adams never believed in a moral people. He didn’t help create a document that would rely on something he didn’t believe existed. Many republics failed because they relied on a virtuous citizenry for survival. We hope for one, but we don’t need it to function.
The Constitution was not intended to rely on virtuous men (let alone the people) to function, it relied on self-interest. It relied on playing one faction against the other.
“If men were angels no government would be necessary” - James Madison Federalist #51.
He also wrote Federalist #10 which speaks to this point more directly. Madison is considered the “father” of the Bill of Rights.
All in all, if the Constitution is dead, it was dead long before November 4th and so-called conservatives are as complicit as anyone.